Originally posted by The Ellimist
Every single major model (PEC, 538, etc.) gives Hillary the edge, as do the betting markets, and a simple aggregate of the polls.Is it possible for Trump to pull an upset? Yeah, but at this point people are just saying he'll win either out of pessimism or hopeful fantasy, neither of which are very good substitutes for the hard data.
I think a lot of people are not very separating who they want to win from who probably win win.
You were saying?
Originally posted by The Ellimist
...or it's like saying that there's this concept called probability. Statistical polling models have historically been incredibly accurate, with PEC getting the exact electoral margin for Obama in 2012. That seems more precise than Stigma's "gut feeling" (lol).Ignoring the people like TI and Stigma who reject the validity of mathematics or something, the simple answer to the question is that Hillary is more likely to win the election than not - that's what every remotely credible model has concluded. Some models (.i.e. Sam Wang's) give far higher certainties than others (.i.e. Nate Silver's), but they all project a Clinton victory. I tend to lean towards Sam's.
You lost👆
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you know that you lost though right?👆
What do you mean? I didn't get the outcome that I wanted, but I had no control over who wins the election, lmao.
Meanwhile, my prediction was just that she would probably win, which was true. This was an upset - but I would have only been wrong if I said she'd "definitely" win.
BTW, Hillary won the popular vote. It happened to be arbitrarily divided in the configuration of the EC against her.
Yea no she isn't
You lost btw. Should I post some more of your lies?